It's Debatable: Can cheerleaders cheer for God at Kountze High School?

Kountze High School cheerleaders and other children work on a large banner in Kountze, Texas. A judge on Wednesday, May 9, 2013 ruled that cheerleaders at the high school can display banners emblazoned with Bible verses at football games. The dispute began during the last football season when the district barred cheerleaders from using run-through banners that displayed religious messages, such as "If God is for us, who can be against us."

Last fall the Kountze High School administrators forbade their cheerleaders to use overtly Christian religious signs as part of their cheerleading. The cheerleaders sought and were granted an injunction forbidding the school from interfering with their free speech. The school appealed and the appellate court is currently considering the question. This week, our debaters, Arnold Loewy and Donald May, discuss how they think the appellate court should rule. Don writes an independent blog on lubbockonline.com and Arnold is the George Killam Professor for Criminal Law at Texas Tech University’s School of Law.

From Arnold: One cannot help but admire the Kountze cheerleaders. These remarkable young women not only care enough about their religion to surround themselves with homemade overtly Christian signs, but they care enough about the Constitution to sue under the free speech clause of the First Amendment and have a judge declare their First Amendment right to use their signs as part of their cheerleading..

So, should these cheerleaders prevail on appeal? The answer unfortunately is no.

This is not because free speech should not be taken seriously in public schools. Indeed, Native American students who wish to wear their hair long in public schools should have a First Amendment right to do so.

Similarly, if one (or for that matter, all) of the Kountze cheerleaders wished to wear a shirt to school with the words “Jesus Loves Me” emblazoned thereon, they should have a Constitutional right to do so.

And, if a contrary-minded student wanted to wear a shirt with the words “There is no God” emblazoned on her shirt, she too should have a First Amendment right to do so.

The reason is the First Amendment is completely agnostic as to the quality or correctness of ideas. Instead, it’s predicated upon the theory that all ideas compete in the marketplace for acceptance and, as the Supreme Court has said: “There is no such thing as a false idea.”

When one represents her school as a cheerleader, it’s obvious this principle cannot work. If, for example, cheerleader Mary Jones had a boyfriend who played for Kountze’s opponent, we would not let her wear his colors while purporting to cheer for Kountze. Similarly, I assume that if particular cheerleaders (perhaps at another school) were atheists, we would not allow them to carry signs (or make the football team run through a sign) that proudly proclaimed: “There is no God.”

Once we have negatively answered the question as to whether cheerleaders using atheist signs are protected by the First Amendment, we have also answered the question of whether Christian signs are protected. The answer is no.

From Don: The attempt to silence the Kountze cheerleaders began with the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) claiming the act of the cheerleaders displaying Bible verses at football games was a “serious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment.”

That claim was blocked by a court order and is not supported by our Constitution or by any court precedent.

The FFRF has made similar claims at other Texas schools, and courts have rightly rejected the FFRF claims and have backed the rights of the students. The First Amendment to our Constitution assures us “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.

Attorney General Greg Abbott pointed out, “the Supreme Court has never held that it’s illegal for a public school to ‘host religious messages at school athletic events.’ And the Supreme Court has never ruled that religion must be kept out of public schools.” Attorney General Abbott went on to say, “the banners are the religious speech of individual students, which enjoys protection under the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.”

The intent of the cheerleaders to express their religious views at a school function is not a violation of the First Amendment or a violation of any precedent court decision. The decision to make the banners, the selection of the word content of the banners, and the decision to personally pay the costs of the banners were all decisions made by the students. The school had no part in any of these decisions nor were the banners constructed on school property.

Abbott pointed out Texas law “protects students’ free exercise of religion by requiring school districts to ‘treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint ... in the same manner the district treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint,’” Tex. Educ. Code § 25.151. Moreover, a school district may not discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject, he said.

Think about it: Can a school district or the Freedom From Religion Foundation stop a student from making the sign of the cross before taking a test, or stop football players from pointing toward heaven after scoring a touchdown or kneeling to pray for an injured teammate? Of course not. Just like the cheerleader banners, such public displays of religion are voluntary expressions of the students’ beliefs and are not attributable to the school district.

From Arnold: I completely agree with Don’s last paragraph except for his analogy of the cheerleaders’ banners to his other examples.

As Don notes, our attorney general tells us school districts are required “to treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint ... in the same manner the district treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint.” So, ask yourself, if the district banned cheerleaders from engaging in political endorsements during a game, would the cheerleaders have a right to have players run through a sign that said “Cruz for the Senate” or “Dewhurst for the Senate.”?

Of course not.

Furthermore, if the cheerleaders have a First Amendment right to flout school authority and use their religious signs, a different group of cheerleaders could have signs saying “There is no God.” And, wouldn’t it be terrible a deeply religious football player (think Tim Tebow) would have to run through a sign saying “There is no God”? But if the cheerleader’s First Amendment prevails that’s exactly what would happen. Bear in mind that if Kountze has an atheist on its football team, he would have to run through the religious signs.

The fact that FFRF may have initiated the school’s decision to ban religious signs at games is quite beside the point. The school board needs to win this appeal in order to make free exercise of religion safe for everybody, not just the dominant group. Religion and religious speech are both very special and both are protected in their place. But their place is not where others (e.g. the football players) are forced to appear to endorse something they do not believe. And, if there is even one Jew, Muslim, or atheist on the Kountze football team that would be the case.

So, let the cheerleaders wear religious shirts to school. Let them proselytize during lunch hour if they so choose. Under those circumstances they are on equal footing with other students. But, as cheerleaders, they are not entitled to a special platform to sell their own brand of religiosity against the wishes of the principal, who wishes to limit cheerleaders to leading cheers for Kountze High School.

From Don: The FFRF and the Texas Association of School Boards successfully frightened the Kountze school board.

Abbott clarified the board’s decision was apparently made “based on a mistaken belief that FFRF’s letter correctly interprets the law. Unfortunately, that mistaken belief was apparently reinforced by erroneous advice from the Texas Association of School Boards. Contrary to FFRF’s claims, however, the Supreme Court has never held it’s illegal for a public school to “host religious messages at school athletic events.” And the Supreme Court has never ruled religion must be kept out of public schools. Instead, each of the Supreme Court cases cited in FFRF’s letter involve decisions by public officials to promote a religious message or to direct the content of a private citizen’s religious message.”

Each of the Kountze High School football players has supported the efforts of the cheerleaders. No football player has been forced or coerced to participate in the pregame activity of the Kountze cheerleaders displaying Bible verses. Any football player could choose to not run between the cheerleaders holding the signs.

I suspect if burka-clad cheerleaders where to hold up a sign saying “Death to America” that the football players would choose to do an end run around the sign and the cheerleaders. If two Kountze cheerleaders were to hold up a sign stating, “There is no God,” I suspect they would be left holding their intact signs with no football players running through their sign.

The players are free to choose to run or not to run through any signs held up by other cheerleaders. Such is how freedom of speech and freedom of association are supposed to work and interact in a free country. Our differences are best resolved by confronting the issues, engaging in free and open discussions, and the adherence to principles of liberty.

Suppressing politically incorrect speech and catering to the wishes of a politically correct minority is contrary to our nation’s founding documents and the intentions of our Founding Fathers. The chance someone might be offended by a verse from the Bible should not ban others from writing a Bible verse on paper and displaying those written words at a public gathering. Such suppression would be contrary to the intent of the First Amendment to our Constitution.

The court rulings thus far affirm the Kountze cheerleaders have our Constitution on their side.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

There is a player on that football team that is agnostic/atheist. He is probably "in the closet" with his beliefs because he worries what his friends and family would think of him if they knew he didn't share their deeply held beliefs.

Of religious folks (Christians especially, it seems), to impose their beliefs and morals on everybody, is mean-spirited and hurtful to those who think differently.

I know that many Christians will never acknowledge this. Their feelings of superiority will not allow them to consider the freedom of others to believe as they wish.

The Tim Tebow example is a good one. I can almost guarantee there are other secular students, parents, and faculty at that school that just bite their lip during these religious displays. How would these kids feel if they had to run through an atheist banner or watch their kids run through one?

This is a secular nation regardless of what the self-righteous would fantasize.

How 'bout we all keep our religious views at home or at church, where they belong?

It's an absolute CRIME for Christians to "force their beliefs on others", but he atheists and agnostics are allowed to force THEIR agenda on EVERYONE, (lest they get their little feelings hurt!). EVERYTHING must be set up for THEIR pleasure. And you don't see the despicable hypocrisy in that? Disgusting!

French historian Alexis de Tocqueville noted in his book Democracy in America, “The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.”
http://www.tocqueville.org/chap1.htm

Opinions from our courts have affirmed the religious foundations of the United States. “Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government . . . because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order.” (People v. Ruggles, 1811, Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court James Kent, author of Commentaries on American Law).

"Christianity . . . is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public." (United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 1844.)

Justice Josiah Brewer, in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, wrote on 29 February 1892, "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind . . . our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian . . . This is a religious people. This is historically true . . . this is a Christian nation."

Justice William O. Douglas, in the case of Zorach v. Clauson, wrote on 29 February 1952, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: 'that God governs in the affairs of men.' And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Benjamin Franklin

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” George Washington

“We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” John Adams

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams

“Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” John Jay

The only foundation for... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” Dr. Benjamin Rush

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” Noah Webster

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God. James Madison

“Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. Northwest Ordinance, Article III

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Our Presidents have also understood our Nation’s religious foundations. In his “Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day,” Abraham Lincoln stated, “Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.”
http://www.eadshome.com/Lincoln.htm

Calvin Coolidge said, “Our Government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberty, and for the rights of mankind. Unless the people believe in these principles, they cannot believe in our Government.”

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “As Commander in Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries, men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book, words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a foundation of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul.”

Congress has also defended against the atheist push to secularize the United States. In the Reports of the Committees of the Senate of the United States Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress, 1854, we find. “They [The Founders] intended, by this Amendment, to prohibit ‘an establishment of religion’ such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it.” “ . . . they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public . . . the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.”

The Reports of the Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the same First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress, 1854, also affirmed our foundations, “Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. . . It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests.” “Christianity . . . was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendents.”

Congress added “under God” to our Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 during the Cold War to distinguish us from the “Godless Communists.” The House Committee on the Judiciary 1954 report stated the added words affirmed “the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator.” In 1956 Congress made “In God We Trust” our National Motto.

That is a wonderful set of your standard quotes you always have at hand--some which are paraphrased. Whatever!

Now in reviewing those quotes from the Founding Fathers only John Quincy Adams and John Jay mention Christianity by name> The others refer to God and the Bible.

You fail the logic test on this one. Yes, all Christians believe in God. But there are those who believe in God and not Christianity.

You promote support for Israel, and yet the Jewish people are not Christians. You direct your hate toward Muslims, who believe in God. And I could go on and on and on listing religions who believe in God--just not your version of God.

And I am not required to believe in your version of God. But, I resent you and your kind trying to ram it down other people's throats.

(and Ernie's) profile may be viewed on the cover of the New Yorker this week. I don't know the reasoning behind castigating Carpbreath for his comment by Bert (and Ernie). Only that Bert (and Ernie) didn't seem to be bothered by May's bitter postings.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" -John Adams

John Quincy Adams refused to be sworn in using the Bible, instead he used a stack of law books to demonstrate the concept of Separation of Church and State as it exists in the Constitution. Don, if you would like to rewrite the 1st Amendment without the Establishment and Free Exercise clause, give it a shot.

Public school prayer has no place in any form in school activities funded by the public.

Professor Loewy once again mopped the floor with Don.

Don, maybe you should be a pastor. I hear the religious right may need you assistance. There seems to be a split in the Christian religion at the moment. Bigotry and hate seem to be the basis of one and love and acceptance expressed by Jesus are the basis for the other. Not everyone shares your bigoted view of the religion.

let's let the kids play ball, and the parents of the children can have them in church as often as they wish.

Other than that, we will need to select which religion we wish to shove down the throats of folks, and I have never seen two religious folks completly agree, that would be fun to watch.

I will tell you from an old high school and college ball player that the songs and prayers done pregame mean between nothing and very little to the players, nor should it. The event is not Sunday School or a pep ralley for America, it's a ball game.

The other thing I picked up on this string is that Don May has a lot of free time.

The above quotation is the citation most utilized by those who want to show that the United States is not a Christian Nation. It is used to justify banning God, The Ten Commandments, and prayer from our public lives.

The only thing that matters about Article 11 of the Treaty is that it does not render the United States of America a secular nation. It does not change the religious foundations of our Founding Fathers or our Nation. Article 11 is completely out of character with all other comments by George Washington or John Adams on the Christian foundations of our Nation. It does not fit with any other statements made by our Federal government at that time.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship reads in full,

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The Treaty was written during the Presidency of George Washington and signed during the Presidency of John Adams. The treaty was read before the United States Senate. There is no information on the reaction of the Senate, or of any other persons, to the words of Article 11 or why they were included in the Treaty.

This Treaty is not related to George Washington other than it was originally written during the final year of his Presidency. However, the treaty did not arrive in the United States until months after Washington was no longer President. He did not write any portion of the Treaty and none of the Treaty has been credited to George Washington. He did not see the Treaty while he was President and it is unknown if he saw it at any time. Article 11 of the Treaty has been credited by some as a quote of George Washington. This allegation is false.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/george_washington_quote_e5d8

John Adams was President in 1797 when the Treaty was ratified. John Adams would not have supported a provision of any treaty that repudiated Christianity.

There is no available record of why Article 11 was placed in the Treaty. As the original Treaty was written in Arabic, the translated words of Article 11 heard or read by our Senators and President John Adams might have been quite different from what is written above. The actual stated intent of Article 11 of the treaty may have been that Christianity is not the official religion of the United States. The United States was not literally founded on the Christian religion in the same sense that Muslim countries are actually founded on Islam.

One might also assume the words of Article 11 were included in the Treaty to appease the Bey [Governor] of Algiers and other leaders in the Barbary States? The appeasement of the Barbary Pirates had gone on in Europe for centuries,

“While Jefferson remained in Paris as minister, he made arrangements with the Catholic Order of Mathurins, which had for centuries begged alms with which to buy the freedom of chiefly Frenchmen taken captive by the Barbary pirates. The head of the order agreed to try to redeem as many Americans as he could, especially from the Algerians. Before enough funds could be collected, however, the French Revolution occurred and the new, anti-cleric government dissolved the Mathurins.”

John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson while they were discussing the Barbary conflict in 1786, “The Policy of Christendom [most of the European powers] has made Cowards of all their Sailors before the Standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in Us, to restore Courage to ours. I doubt not we could accomplish it, if we should set about it in earnest. But the Difficulty of bringing our People to agree upon it, has ever discouraged me.”
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2007/08/barbary-pirates-old-and-new_26.htm

The appeasement of the Barbary States stopped when Jefferson and Madison became Presidents. With the Barbary States Wars, the United States effectively ended the piracy by the Islamic Barbary States. It was our first war to end terrorism and slavery.

As there are no records of the debate and other dialogue on the Treaty, all is simply speculation. Hopefully at some future date historic documentation describing the discussion of this Treaty might be found in an archives, a library, or a family trunk.

The Left clings to Article 11 as one of their last best hopes to prove that our Founding Fathers were not Christian and that our Nation is not a religious Nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. This secularist argument falls flat and is without any foundational basis. Their persistent and repeated pleadings do not add any truth to their position.

It would seem your perspective on prayer has remained constant since you played football.

That does not give you the right to tell people at a football game that they cannot pray, have a very large sweetened drink, eat large amounts of hot dogs and pizza, eat fried Twinkies, drink a beer, text to a friend, ingest a salt tablet, or drive home in a Hummer.

I suggest you go to a soccer game in Yemen and tell them you don’t want to hear any of their Muslim prayers. You might find out quickly that the people at that soccer game are not nearly as kind, tolerant, and calm as the people you insult here in the USA.

The proper address of those who have medical degrees or Ph.D. degrees and who make respectful comments in posting their opinions--which include blogs, is to state the title along with their name, which they earned in the pursuit of their profession.........